From the Bookshelf: Presidential Speechwriters, Iraq, Watergate, and the Democratic Party

REXgOYvtth

GYb9O4 jifoiasjfi asjf joiajf iasf joasifj asojf iasj fioasj fiasjf osiajf ioajfio asjfio jsaif as

"In Defense of Lobbyists"

Your article "In Defense of Lobbyists" is either an attempt to mislead the reading public or an article written without an understanding of modern day lobbying.

Any informed person who would attempt to lead readers to believe that Increase Mather or Ben Franklin were lobbyists in the tradition of the present day lobbyist world has missed the point or is uninfomred.

Increase Mather and Franklin did not come bearing gifts. They merely were presenting a point of view. It is understood by even a casual observer that today's lobbyists are buying votes. They lobby legislators who full well know that if they vote the way the lobbyist suggests their campaign will receive lucrative contributions.

Not once in your article did you bring this to your readers' attention.

Isn't it interesting that K street lobbyists have multiplied a thousand fold in the past 10 years.

"Wrong On Race"

I have skimmed through Bartlett's book, and I must politely disagree with the mild praise of it here. It is true that long ago Democrats (or, more specifically, Dixiecrats) were on the wrong side of race issues, dating back to the antebellum southern Dems' protection of slavery. But since the 1960s, the Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic party has faded (many erstwhile Dixiecrats and their political progeny are now Republicans.) And what does Bartlett cite to claim that Democrats today are bad on race? That Robert Byrd was in the Klan over 60 years ago? Not very relevant; as Barone notes in the "Almanac of American Politics", Byrd quickly quit that organization and has since regretted joining. But what about the switch to the GOP by reactionaries like Jesse Helms? As the far right became more dominant in the GOP and pro-civil rights moderates like Javits and McCulloch left politics or found themselves marginalized, it's no wonder why many came to feel that the party of Lincoln was abandoning his legacy. (To be fair, Barry Goldwater was probably among them, as he expressed regret about voting against the Civil Rights Act, which he attributed to poor legal advice about its constitutionality.)

Republicans made a big deal about tossing up a few often marginally qualified African-American candidates for governor and senator in recent elections, but black voters knew which party has recently stood more strongly for civil rights and economic issues that they feel are most important, and so they sided with Democrats in those races even though the Dems were white. Dragging up ghosts of dead, nominally Democratic reactionaries from 100 years ago won't change that.

I'll have to read Catastrophe; I enjoy reading histories of campaigns past. While the 1800 election may have been acrimonious and in some ways disputed, it certainly wasn't a catastrophe (by contrast, I think the extended 2000 election ultimately turned out to be a catastrophe, or something close to it, for the country, a view that I did not have at the time.) And this year's primary season was certainly fascinating, if not always edifying.

Trolls

Why don't trolls like Jack Conway (above) post on Puffington Host and with the Kos Kiddies? They would be much happier among a sympathetic group, and so would the normal people on this comment section.

Barone's dirty mind

I just got around to your defense of Silberman, relative to the Brock book.

Really, Barone, are you out of your mind? How can you deny Silberman's perverted past?

But that's how it is with you Republican apologists, when it comes to ideology your world is still flat.